1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 5,457,906; (b) KRW 3,638,604; (c) KRW 17,249,579; and (d) Plaintiff B.

1. Basic facts

(a) Outline of the rearrangement project: A rearrangement zone for a H housing redevelopment project (hereinafter referred to as “instant rearrangement project”): The date of public announcement of a rearrangement plan for 219,139 square meters in Bupyeong-gu, Incheon: The date of public announcement of approval for project implementation on August 22, 2008: The date of adjudication for expropriation on June 4, 2010: The project implementer on May 18, 2017: the defendant;

B. The Plaintiffs’ status 1) The net A, Plaintiff F, and G within the instant improvement project zone are each residential building as follows (hereinafter “each residential building of this case”).

The owners of B were eligible for cash settlement because they failed to apply for parcelling-out within the period set by the Defendant during which they were residing from the date of each transfer. The number of household members as of the date of the ruling of expropriation on December 27, 2018, G on December 201, 2018, G of Bupyeong-gu, Incheon, 1992, J on November 21, 2018, the date of moving into a residential building for the Plaintiff, the date of moving into the residential building for the Plaintiff, the number of household members as of December 2, 2018, G, and the number of household members as of September 16, 2018, G, the number of net A, the number of Plaintiff F, three, and the number of Plaintiffs G, respectively.

3) On June 4, 2019, the Network A died with Plaintiff C, D, and E, who is the wife of Plaintiff B and their children, as the bereaved family members. [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 1, 2, and evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (if available, the number of items included in the number, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Occurrence of obligation to pay housing relocation expenses, relocation expenses, and resettlement subsidies;

A. Key issues and the parties’ assertion that the owner of a residential building for which cash liquidation was made is entitled to “resident relocation expenses” by continuously owning and residing each residential building of this case from August 18, 2017, which is the date of the public inspection and announcement of the maintenance plan, to August 22, 2008, which is the date of the public inspection and announcement of the public inspection as to the maintenance plan, until May 18, 2017 (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Du19519, Feb. 26, 2015).